The upcoming election of a mayor in Burlington offers a stellar example
of the value of instant runoff voting (IRV). With five candidates on
the ballot, Burlington voters have a wide choice. Under plurality
election rules common in the United States, having so many viable
candidates is likely to generate a “spoiler” dynamic. That is where
similar candidates, splitting the majority, might allow a candidate not
favored by a majority of the voters to win with less than 50 percent.

Many
jurisdictions use runoff elections to avoid the “spoiler” problem and
defend majority rule. But Burlington uses an even better method, also
recently adopted by San Francisco, Minneapolis and Memphis, that avoids
the cost and often lower voter turnout of traditional runoff elections.
That better method is instant runoff voting. The League of Women Voters
of Vermont has been advocating for IRV statewide for the past decade.

With
IRV, Burlington voters are allowed to rank as many candidates as they
wish in order of preference. If no candidate is the first choice of a
majority (over 50 percent), the candidate with the fewest votes is
declared defeated and voters who supported an eliminated candidate then
have their ballots counted for their next choice among the remaining
candidates. This process continues until there are only two candidates
in the running.
In the final runoff round, the finalist preferred by the majority is
elected. IRV thus simulates a series of runoff elections, but with a
single election.

Many people, however, are accustomed to the
notion that the candidate with the highest initial vote count ought to
win. When there are only two candidates the winner, by definition, has
a majority of the votes. But in a multi-candidate race, with any runoff
system, the leader with the most votes in the first round is not
necessarily the rightful winner. The race isn’t over yet. Only after
the field of candidates has been reduced to two finalists can it be
determined which is the most preferred choice.

In Burlington’s
2006 mayoral race the ultimate winner of the instant runoff happened to
be the leader in the first round as well, so the issue of a “come from
behind” victory did not arise. With five candidates in 2009, the “top
vote getter” in the first round could mathematically have just 21
percent support, while the absolute majority of 79 percent agree that
they do not want that candidate. It is natural for supporters of a
losing candidate, who had a lead in the first round, to try and blame
the voting method, rather than accepting the reality that between the
two finalists, more voters preferred the other candidate.

Vermont
has a long history of requiring majority winners. Settling for mere
plurality winners is a relatively recent compromise to avoid repeated
voting. For most of Vermont’s history, when no candidate topped 50
percent for most offices, rather than giving the seat to the plurality
leader, repeated votes were held until some candidate won an absolute
majority. Although most people are unaware of this, that is still the
state law for local elections in Vermont conducted at town meeting.
Section 2660 of Title 17 of state law requires majority winners at town
meeting. With repeated voting, the candidates with the fewest votes are
dropped one at a time until some candidate achieves a majority — which
is how Burlington’s IRV law works.

In the recent election of
the new Republican National Committee chairman, in a field of five
candidates, Michael Steele was in second place behind Mike Duncan in
the first round. But rather than declaring the “top vote getter”
elected, the Republican Party requires a majority winner. As candidates
dropped out one at a time in subsequent rounds, Steele came from behind
to win with a majority. IRV accomplishes the same thing, but without
the cost or lower voter turnout typical of public runoff elections.

As
a final note, I would like to observe that John McCain, Howard Dean and
President Barack Obama have championed instant runoff voting. Perhaps
its time to take IRV national.

Vee Gordon of Essex Junction is legislative chairwoman of the League of Women Voters of Vermont.